Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I suppose the Dems could just invoke the McConnell rule and refuse to participate in hearings/filibuster so close to an election. Then refuse to consider anyone nominated by a President who is in the process of being impeached.

I suppose the Dems could just invoke the McConnell rule and refuse to participate in hearings/filibuster so close to an election. Then refuse to consider anyone nominated by a President who is in the process of being impeached.

But I know that's just wishful thinking. We're screwed.

You know, "Despair Porn" is trendy and considered cool, but it plays right into Trump's hands.

__________________Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

I suppose the Dems could just invoke the McConnell rule and refuse to participate in hearings/filibuster so close to an election. Then refuse to consider anyone nominated by a President who is in the process of being impeached.

But I know that's just wishful thinking. We're screwed.

The Court has to somewhat mirror the country because they know the legislature will step in if their rulings get too crazy. The country has accepted legalized abortion and gay marriage to such an extent, the Court will be under tremendous pressure to not reverse those decisions, and those are the two I personally care about the most. I don't think they're under any danger.

But we're going to absolutely eat it on things like voting rights and unions.

The Court has to somewhat mirror the country because they knew the legislature will step in if their rulings get too crazy. The country has accepted legalized abortion and gay marriage to such an extent, the Court will be under tremendous pressure to not reverse those decisions, and those are the two I personally care about the most. I don't think they're under any danger.

But we're going to absolutely eat it on things like voting rights and unions.

I see theocrats rushing to get a case that could overturn Roe v. Wade in front of the new justice. They've abandoned everything they believe in to support Daft Taft and get this opportunity. They want their thirty pieces of silver.

Serously, A lot of the despair and wallowing in extensitanal misery we are getting on this site is just what Trump and the GOP want.

Oh, I don't think you can get the base fired up anymore than it already is. I've never seen Democrats so engaged before. Turnout will probably set records, and I think most of it will be on the Dem side.

You know, "Despair Porn" is trendy and considered cool, but it plays right into Trump's hands.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Serously, A lot of the despair and wallowing in extensitanal misery we are getting on this site is just what Trump and the GOP want.

How is is despair porn to point out that the Trump will be very likely to nominate a candidate and see that candidate approved, and to understand that the candidate will likely be much more conservative than Kennedy?

How does this play into Trump's hands?

It is very, very easy for this to happen. Even if the Dems filibuster, it only takes 51 Senate votes to change the rules and end the filibuster. They've got that. 60 votes to over-ride a filibuster, but only 51 votes to decide not to allow filibusters on this or that issue.

It seems to me that this is what is most likely to actually happen. They would have to move pretty fast to make it happen before the election, but if its a priority, they'll do it.

I see theocrats rushing to get a case that could overturn Roe v. Wade in front of the new justice. They've abandoned everything they believe in to support Daft Taft and get this opportunity. They want their thirty pieces of silver.

I'm sure they'll try, and they'll probably be able to make it harder to get abortions, but to make it impossible isn't going to happen, I think. Unless I'm totally misreading the country, which has happened before.

Oh, I don't think you can get the base fired up anymore than it already is. I've never seen Democrats so engaged before. Turnout will probably set records, and I think most of it will be on the Dem side.

And .on reflection, a lot of this is just Internet posturing. because deep,sorrowful angst is considered cool and hip. Sounding like you are on the verge of suicide is badge of hipness among many young people.

__________________Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

And .on reflection, a lot of this is just Internet posturing. because deep,sorrowful angst is considered cool and hip. Sounding like you are on the verge of suicide is badge of hipness among many young people.

Liberals' bad luck is to be stuck with young people, who we have to drag kicking and screaming to the polls. On the other hand, old people die a lot, and demographics is destiny, so I think liberals have a winning hand in the coming years, even with a system that gives outsized influence to rural America.

I'm sure they'll try, and they'll probably be able to make it harder to get abortions, but to make it impossible isn't going to happen, I think. Unless I'm totally misreading the country, which has happened before.

I can see it happening, there are a few steps, and certainly in many states it will be totally absent from operation even if technically legal. Look at how good the unconstitutional laws have been at getting providers to close than when ruled unconstitutional they don't open up again.

So first I see lots of states that have no providers in the whole state like say texas, where it is just a quick trip over the boarder several states to get to one.

Nationally outlawing would be a fair distance down the road, and would be a result of the death of democracy.

I can see it happening, there are a few steps, and certainly in many states it will be totally absent from operation even if technically legal. Look at how good the unconstitutional laws have been at getting providers to close than when ruled unconstitutional they don't open up again.

So first I see lots of states that have no providers in the whole state like say texas, where it is just a quick trip over the boarder several states to get to one.

Nationally outlawing would be a fair distance down the road, and would be a result of the death of democracy.

What they might do is kick the issue back to the states. That would, ironically, make it easier for most people to get abortions, since more people live in liberal states.

What they might do is kick the issue back to the states. That would, ironically, make it easier for most people to get abortions, since more people live in liberal states.

Not remotely, it wouldn't get harder in some states, get impossible in others even if technically legal. Why do you think there are federal rules that would change that make it harder to get an abortion? You think they are going to fund contraception and maternity care at planned parenthood or something?

I'm sure they'll try, and they'll probably be able to make it harder to get abortions, but to make it impossible isn't going to happen, I think. Unless I'm totally misreading the country, which has happened before.

There was a segment on the political satire show The Opposition that had 2 of their "correspondents" travelling to Mississippi to show how easy it was to get an abortion. They found that there was:
1) one abortion clinic in the state (which means some people will have to travel hours to get to it)
2) It required a multi-day stay (which means staying in a hotel for some people)
So if you were a relatively poor person living in a remote part of the state, it would be a considerable hardship to obtain an abortion.

Abortion will likely not be outlawed outright; instead, there will be small little laws and challenges (Cuts to the number of clinics and federal funding, restrictive regulations about how they operate, etc.) that will make it increasingly harder to obtain one, until the only people who can afford to get one are rich republicans and their playmate mistresses.

There was a segment on the political satire show The Opposition that had 2 of their "correspondents" travelling to Mississippi to show how easy it was to get an abortion. They found that there was:
1) one abortion clinic in the state (which means some people will have to travel hours to get to it)
2) It required a multi-day stay (which means staying in a hotel for some people)
So if you were a relatively poor person living in a remote part of the state, it would be a considerable hardship to obtain an abortion.

Abortion will likely not be outlawed outright; instead, there will be small little laws and challenges (Cuts to the number of clinics and federal funding, restrictive regulations about how they operate, etc.) that will make it increasingly harder to obtain one, until the only people who can afford to get one are rich republicans and their playmate mistresses.

The Court has to somewhat mirror the country because they know the legislature will step in if their rulings get too crazy. The country has accepted legalized abortion and gay marriage to such an extent, the Court will be under tremendous pressure to not reverse those decisions, and those are the two I personally care about the most. I don't think they're under any danger.

But we're going to absolutely eat it on things like voting rights and unions.

I think you have things backwards. With Kennedy people are already eating it on things like voting rights and unions. Kennedy was standing in the way of us also eating it on abortion and gay marriage. Prepare for that to change. Are they going to overturn Roe this fall? No, but it will be hollowed out to nothing pretty quickly.

As to the court needing to somewhat mirror the country. It doesn't have do. Usually a SC will, but that is up to the individuals. Most of the current members are ideologues who could care less what the general public thinks about their decisions. They know their ideology is correct, so if the general population disagrees it is because they are wrong.

Not remotely, it wouldn't get harder in some states, get impossible in others even if technically legal. Why do you think there are federal rules that would change that make it harder to get an abortion? You think they are going to fund contraception and maternity care at planned parenthood or something?

California and New York, if given the choice, would enact extremely liberal abortion policies. That's 1 in 5 Americans right there. Some states would make it illegal, so some women would have to travel to get one.

I think you have things backwards. With Kennedy people are already eating it on things like voting rights and unions. Kennedy was standing in the way of us also eating it on abortion and gay marriage. Prepare for that to change.

Oh, I think on voting rights and unions, sure. It's only going to get worse, but on abortion? I don't think Murkowski and Collins would support someone they thought was capable of overturning Roe. I don't think Roberts would go along with it, and I think that's essentially who we're going to get: another Roberts.

California and New York, if given the choice, would enact extremely liberal abortion policies. That's 1 in 5 Americans right there. Some states would make it illegal, so some women would have to travel to get one.

What policies do you think they want to enact that they would be allowed to in the future?

This isn't the federal gov ending their abortion restrictions, it is that the court would no longer be a check against states defacto banning it.

The Court has to somewhat mirror the country because they know the legislature will step in if their rulings get too crazy. The country has accepted legalized abortion and gay marriage to such an extent, the Court will be under tremendous pressure to not reverse those decisions, and those are the two I personally care about the most. I don't think they're under any danger.

But we're going to absolutely eat it on things like voting rights and unions.

See the bolded. Without voting rights protection, without limits on Gerrymandering or campaign finance, the legislature will not mirror the country, and elections will have few consequences to them. They'll be under no pressure to try to reign in the Supremes.

At any rate, the legislature has little ability to do anything to counter the SC.

Oh, I think on voting rights and unions, sure. It's only going to get worse, but on abortion? I don't think Murkowski and Collins would support someone they thought was capable of overturning Roe. I don't think Roberts would go along with it, and I think that's essentially who we're going to get: another Roberts.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.